The Cross of 11/2/0001 AD
Dave...@aol.com
Note to DN webmaster, could you retroactively cross post this? Or just
put it in the new places, I'm new at this...
Subject: The Cross Conjunction of Righteousness, Nov.2nd, 1 AD
From: Dave...@aol.com
Date: 1997/04/17
Message-Id: <8612889...@dejanews.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian
[More Headers]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello.
I wanted to know what the star of Bethlehem was, and no one seemed to
have a definitive answer. So I looked for myself, with a planetarium
program. What I found was that:
On November 2nd, 1 AD
the planets formed a Cross!
This seemed like a significant religious symbol, deserving more study.
The more I researched it, the more I found. It fit every scripture and
prophecy I read. This star 'arose in the east' just before dawn, moved
westward across the sky every day (as all stars do), and transited the
southern sky (since Persia and Israel are north of the equator) thus it
went before them, on their way south to Bethlehem, until it was overhead,
at noon.
Figuring the Magi were astrologers, I looked up the astrological
symbolism of this Cross Conjunction and found it seemed to describe Jesus
perfectly.
I reread the prophets, and studied the symbolism of this star:
A Cross on the Balance of Judgment
bringing with it the light of a new Day;
the "Sword descending for Judgment", (Isaiah)
the "Day Star, Son of Dawn", (Isaiah)
the "Teacher of Righteousness", (Dead Sea Scrolls)
the "Scepter" on the Scales of Justice, (Dead Sea Scrolls)
the "Rod" that became a "staff", (Psalms)
the "Seed planted" that sprouted the righteous root, (Ezekiel ...)
the "Green Tree made low", and the "dry tree raised up", (Ezekiel)
the "Cedar" that became a "vine", (Ezekiel)
the "Shoot", whose root "shot up like a sapling", (Isaiah)
and even more amazing was that this Cross seemed to relate to many other
religions (why shouldn't it, it's One God for All, right?):
Yima's poniard (the Good Shepherd's dagger) inlaid with gold,
(Zoroastrian Avesta) the Celestial Bird in the tree over the scorpion,
(Maya) the Love Goddess Quetzacoatl's journey through the underworld,
(Aztec) the "Phoenix of Impartiality", the sign of "a Just Man",
(Balthazar)
the "Spur" of spurs,
the "Shoot" of shoots,
the "Scepter" of scepters,
the "Sword" of swords,
the "Star" of stars...
"A beautiful, intelligent, graced and mystical person." (Vedic astrology)
**************************************************************
And so my Conscience and Intuition tells me to:
1. Tell the World
2. Seek Insight from others
And so I do. I have created pictures and movies of this Cross Conjunction
of Righteousness with my planetarium program, and along with detailed
discussion of these prophecies and scriptures, put them on a non-profit
WEBsite to share freely with the world. See:
***The Cross Conjunction of Righteousness***
http://members.aol.com/humblemagi/index.html
I am seeking more Insight as to how this 'star' in the heavens relates to
other prophecies of the Messiah. I am interested in discussing this Cross
Conjunction of Righteousness with others, especially others who
understand how Yahushua fulfilled these prophecies on earth.
As above, so below.
On earth, as it is in heaven.
Within, as without.
Sincerely,
sharing the Wisdom that has been shared with me,
and seeking the Wisdom that is revealed to others,
Your brother in Christ,
David
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
AstroJack
Dave...@AOL.com wrote:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hello.
snip
>Sincerely,
>sharing the Wisdom that has been shared with me,
>and seeking the Wisdom that is revealed to others,
>Your brother in Christ,
>David
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Stellar crosses are not unusual.
A much more significant "star" is the multiple conjunction of planets
in the sign of Pisces at March 1, 7 BC. (1:30am local mean time in
Bethlehem) This timing was determined by Don Jacobs, an astrologer
who was also a minister (Methodist, I believe) and who had studied the
astrological techniques that the Magi would have used.
** Jack Fertig * Astrologer **
** Birth Charts * Forecasting * Compatibility **
** Personal and Business Services * Workshops * Lectures **
** 415/864-8302 * ti...@backdoor.com **
** http://www.postfun.com/astrojack/ **
Thomas Seers
Moby Dick,
May he rest in peace, his son is still caring on with his insights. He
was a Pisces also, a personal friend and a good astrologer.
I believe, if you check with the AFA they still have the book he wrote
on it.
Thomas
--
*****************************************
Thomas Seers AMAFA
E-mail: tse...@voy.net
Antioch, TN 37011-2178
Tel (615) 366-0048 Fax (615) 366-7230
http://www.voy.net/~belzar/
*****************************************
Jim Roach
In this context then what would be meant when Jesus said in response to
the question, "what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of
the world..."....."And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in
the heaven: and then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn, and they
shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and
great glory." MATTHEW 24:30.
When will a similar event occur as the two examples given in AD
1 and AD 7 if this reference could be to such a sign?
Jedidiah Whitten
Dave...@AOL.com wrote:
: I wanted to know what the star of Bethlehem was, and no one seemed to
: have a definitive answer. So I looked for myself, with a planetarium
: program. What I found was that:
:
: On November 2nd, 1 AD
: the planets formed a Cross!
This couldn't have been the star of Bethlehem. Jesus was born no later
than 4 BC by the Biblical account. He would have been, at the very least
3 or 4 years old by the time this conjunction occured.
--
Jedidiah Whitten
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
University of California, Davis jswh...@ucdavis.edu
Computer Science Department whi...@cs.ucdavis.edu
http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~whitten icbm://121.41.18.W/38.33.08.N
ku6...@freenet.on.ca
I hate it when someone starts quoting the bible only selectively.
If he would have read the whole text of the New Testament, instead of
mis-quoting selected verses, he would have come accross a little section
before the Magi got involved in the story. Something to the effect of
Caesar Augustus ordering that everyone in the land to be enumerated
(probably for tax purposes), each in their birthplace. Mary was heavy
with child (ie. Mary was pregnant and almost at full term) when Joseph
took her to Bethlehem to be enumerated. Now I don't remember all of my
Roman history, but I think that Caesar Augustus died in 4 B.C. which
means that Christ's birth was actually befor that, probably in 7 B.C.
despite current assumptions. See, Roman history we know more accuratly
than Bible history - we have a record of when Caesar Augustus died but we
do not have a birth certificate for Jesus. Besides if the Magi came in 1
A.D., Jesus would not have been in swadling in a manger, he was probably
planning already to preach in the temple. Furthermore, even if we assume
that the Magi came to Jesus in his first year of his life, we still have
a problem. According to the Bible we are told that the family had to
flee Herods grasp into Egypt. Under these circumstances, I don't think
Joseph and Mary would have stuck around for 11 month for the Magi to show
up.
Now lets get back to current astonomy, or can you predict from reading
the stars when Armageddon (sp?) will start, when in the Garden Jesus told
his deciples that no one can know when he will return until it happens.
Or do you pretend to be Jesus Christ of the second comming?
Dave...@AOL.com wrote:
>
> Note to DN webmaster, could you retroactively cross post this? Or just
> put it in the new places, I'm new at this...
>
> Subject: The Cross Conjunction of Righteousness, Nov.2nd, 1 AD
> From: Dave...@aol.com
> Date: 1997/04/17
> Message-Id: <8612889...@dejanews.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian
> [More Headers]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------>
> Hello.
>
> I wanted to know what the star of Bethlehem was, and no one seemed to
> have a definitive answer. So I looked for myself, with a planetarium
> program. What I found was that:
>
> On November 2nd, 1 AD
> the planets formed a Cross!
>
> This seemed like a significant religious symbol, deserving more study.
> The more I researched it, the more I found. It fit every scripture and
> prophecy I read. This star 'arose in the east' just before dawn, moved
> westward across the sky every day (as all stars do), and transited the
> southern sky (since Persia and Israel are north of the equator) thus it
> went before them, on their way south to Bethlehem, until it was overhead,
> at noon.
>
> Figuring the Magi were astrologers, I looked up the astrological
> symbolism of this Cross Conjunction and found it seemed to describe Jesus
> perfectly.
>
Support Engineer
There are a number of possible expanations for the Star of Bethlehem,
ranging from a 'new star' seen by Chinese astronomers about 8 BC (a year
when Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census), to two or three
conjunctions, to a comet, to a supernatural phenomenon.
Which one was it? I don't think that there is anything considered
definitive by more than a few proponants.
Paul Schlyter
In article <335B83...@freenet.on.ca>, <ku6...@freenet.on.ca> wrote:
> I hate it when someone starts quoting the bible only selectively.
since such a quote would be about 5 MBytes large..... :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se p...@net.ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://spitfire.ausys.se/psr -- updated daily!
Peter Besenbruch
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:11:19 -0600, Dave...@AOL.com wrote:
>I wanted to know what the star of Bethlehem was, and no one seemed to
>have a definitive answer. So I looked for myself, with a planetarium
>program. What I found was that:
>
>On November 2nd, 1 AD
>the planets formed a Cross!
One of the definitive discussions of the birth narratives of Jesus is
Raymond Brown's Birth of the Messiah, now in its second edition. I
suspect few will be surprised that his conclusions differ from Mr.
Zipse.
Brown does a good job tracing possible sources for the star images in
Matthew, both Biblical and extrabiblical. Some of the more impressive
links tie in with Jewish midrashic literature (we get this from
Josephus and Philo) that expands the Biblical account of the birth of
Moses.
In this tradition, Pharaoh receives the message that someone from
amongst the Hebrews will be a threat to Egypt. The warning is given
him by his magi. He is upset, and all Egypt with him. Pharaoh tries to
kill all male Hebrew children. Moses' father is warned in a dream.
The star itself come from the Balaam stories in Numbers. Jewish
tradition attributes many things to, Balaam, one of which was that he
was a gentile given special powers of insight. Matthew treats the magi
the same way. Matthew's concern for the revelation of God to the
gentiles occurs again and again through the gospel; he contrasts this
with the Jewish authorities of his day, who have scripture, but show
less insight than the gentiles.
As for the star itself: It's beating a dead horse to repeat that it
was the common practice of those days to attribute celestial phenomena
to the birth of great people. Hence, the star of Bethlehem could be
any of the events suggested, or none of them.
___________________________________________________
Hawaiian Astronomical Society http://www.hawastsoc.org
HAS Deepsky Atlas http://www.hawastsoc.org/deepsky
Delete the "#nobulk#." for the true e-mail address.
John Reder
Actually it was the Emperor Tiberius that ordered the census.
The bible uses the term Caeser generically, as all Roman Emperors took
Caeser as a title, not a name. Equal confusion with the name King Herod,
as the Herod mentioned at the time of birth is actually 3 removed from
the one at the cruicifixion, (Herod Antpas as opposed to Herod Agrippa).
As for the remainder of the cosmological assumption, some people
can find in the bible the mathematical formula to know determine how many
angels can fit on the head of a pin. (I understand 440,000), which in
turn is the number of souls that will be worthy to go to heaven.
I do know, by divine revelation, that the bible does tell you,
if you take the number of hebrew characters in genesis and mulitply them
by the number of verses in the Apocrophyia, it will tell give the
total number of McDonald's hamburgers that will be sold by the time world
ends. So watch the golden arches to know when the time is nigh.
--
******When replying by email, remove mass******
******mail blocking "X" from return address******
John Reder (jre...@tiac.net)
Carl Christensen
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:44:54 GMT, ti...@backdoor.com (AstroJack)
wrote:
>Stellar crosses are not unusual.
>A much more significant "star" is the multiple conjunction of planets
>in the sign of Pisces at March 1, 7 BC. (1:30am local mean time in
>Bethlehem) This timing was determined by Don Jacobs, an astrologer
>who was also a minister (Methodist, I believe) and who had studied the
>astrological techniques that the Magi would have used.
That doesn't say much for the bible then, or the people of that time
in Israel, if they can't tell the stars from the planets. It seems
like every other culture that pre-dated and was concurrent with
ancient Israel knew the difference between stars and planets!
------
Carl Christensen /~~\_/~\ ,,,
C/C++/VB/Web Consultant | #=#==========# |
Philadelphia, PA USA \__/~\_/ ```
E-mail: ca...@op.net Web: http://www.op.net/~carl
Edmond Wollmann
A stellium of planets in Picses-the sign of martrydom, following and the
dissolution of ego identity through sacrifice of the self. The new star
was the chart of the christ, most likely the one for March 1, 7 BC.
Magi-means diviner or astrologer in Persian.
It was a CHART, HOROSCOPE, not a star up in the sky-ever try to follow
one somewhere? You'll go round the Earth until you wake up and realize
you can't- they knew this you know.
The Aquarian focus coming up will probably involve a lot of people born
in 62 and 63 during the Aquarian stelliums. Of course we don't need to
follow anyone any more so they will just assist in the second coming
which will be in each individual-not another ONE.
--
"He who drinks from my mouth will become as I am, and I shall be he."
The Gospel according to St. Thomas
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Mary L. Urquhart
ca...@op.net (Carl Christensen) wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:44:54 GMT, ti...@backdoor.com (AstroJack)
>wrote:
>>Stellar crosses are not unusual.
>>A much more significant "star" is the multiple conjunction of planets
>>in the sign of Pisces at March 1, 7 BC. (1:30am local mean time in
>>Bethlehem) This timing was determined by Don Jacobs, an astrologer
>>who was also a minister (Methodist, I believe) and who had studied the
>>astrological techniques that the Magi would have used.
>That doesn't say much for the bible then, or the people of that time
>in Israel, if they can't tell the stars from the planets. It seems
>like every other culture that pre-dated and was concurrent with
>ancient Israel knew the difference between stars and planets!
>Carl Christensen
Oh, they knew. They just didn't call them "planets". There were
stars that moved and then there were the "fixed" stars. And stars
were lights in the sky, or bodies that had light of some kind. A
planet has light, even if it is reflected light. Don't assume that
the language you know is the same as that which they used.
Edmond Wollmann
ku6...@freenet.on.ca wrote:
> I hate it when someone starts quoting the bible only selectively.
Then you hate the whole Bible-which is a canonized version of selected
writings to suit the collective and current perspective on what they
thought "Christian" religion "should" be early in the first century.
The whole gospel of Thomas was left out and all other more gnostic,
metaphysical and insightful works-which like myself they did not want
"in there" to "confuse" their control and science of following-which is
all orthodox religions (any subjects insitutionalized) are. The bible is
primarily the effect of the perisistence and fortitude of Paul who
forced, argued, sent letters, and in every way argued for the current
versions we see now.
--
"I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may
see, and those who do see may become blind.
The Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not
blind are we?" And he said to them, "If you were blind, you would have
no sin. But now that you say, 'We see,'your sin remains." John 39-41
TRM
> > On November 2nd, 1 AD
> > the planets formed a Cross!
> >
According to SKYGLOBE.EXE, 5 November 0001, Looking 102 degrees (ESE)
The four planets and the moon were indeed in conjunction and rising just
before sunrise. (Four planets with the moon just off the horizon, at
5:03) and the sun rising 30 minutes or so later.
> > This seemed like a significant religious symbol, deserving more study.
> > The more I researched it, the more I found. It fit every scripture and
> > prophecy I read.
Since every scripture and prophecy was written down afterwards, that's
not surprising.
> > This star 'arose in the east' just before dawn, moved
> > westward across the sky every day (as all stars do), and transited the
> > southern sky (since Persia and Israel are north of the equator) thus it
> > went before them, on their way south to Bethlehem, until it was overhead,
> > at noon.
By Dec 25, 12noon, Mercury was at 160 deg (ESE), Venus 189 deg (S),
Mars 205 deg (SSW) Jupiter 230 deg (WSW) and the moon had set and was at
288 deg (WNW). I'm not sure how this tells the wise men anything. The
conjunction was gone, spread some 120 degrees apart.
I think that the beginning conjunction on 5 Nov was significant to the
astrologers of the day but I don't follow the rest of your reasoning.
Elson Trinidad
> On November 2nd, 1 AD
> the planets formed a Cross!
>
> This seemed like a significant religious symbol, deserving more study.
Doesn't make sense.
The cross wasn't recognized as a religious symbol until over a century
later. If anyone saw a cross in the sky, it probably might have been
interpreted as a sign of death, rather than the birth of a king, or any
sort of miraculous event. The cross was a form of capital punishment those
days, remember? It's kind of like seeing an electric chair in the sky
today.
Peter Besenbruch
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 15:47:50 -0700, John Reder <xjr...@tiac.net>
wrote:
> Actually it was the Emperor Tiberius that ordered the census.
>The bible uses the term Caeser generically, as all Roman Emperors took
>Caeser as a title, not a name.
It is Luke's gospel, not Matthew's that mentions Caesar Augustus (Luke
2:1). Later, Luke mentions Tiberius (Luke 3:1). While we may question
some of Luke's dates, we cannot attribute confusion about emperors.
Matthew makes no mention of Roman emperors in his birth narratives.
What is your source for Tiberius ordering a census?
> Equal confusion with the name King Herod,
>as the Herod mentioned at the time of birth is actually 3 removed from
>the one at the cruicifixion, (Herod Antpas as opposed to Herod Agrippa).
Herod the Great was born in 73 BCE and died in 4 BCE. He is the Herod
of Matthew's birth narrative. The cruelty depicted by Matthew is in
character with this man, although Matthew's examples derive more from
Old Testament sources.
Herod Antipas was a son of Herod the Great. He lived from 21 BCE to 39
CE. He is the king responsible for the death of John the Baptist.
Herod Agrippa was the grandson of Herod the Great, and lived from 10
BCE to 44 CE. He is mentioned in the book of Acts There isn't any
confusion with either the Herods or the emperors.
The rest of the comments need no comment.
ku6...@freenet.on.ca
I stand corrected on my roman history. Thank you.
As for the rest, I agree some people try to read into the bible way too
much, especially if they are reading an edited translation of an edited
translation of the original hebru and greek texts.
To take it a step further into the ridiculous, the symbol of the beast
was identified as "666". Now lets play with that for a while and see who
the beast is. Recently I read an article in a student underground paper
that identifies Bill Gates as the beast, and Microsoft as the "beast in
waiting". It's true, all you have to do is substitute the ASCII codes
for BILL GATES III (the third) and add them up, and you will get "666".
Now isn't that scary. Similar substitution can be applied to Microsoft.
But that does remind me of a story I already read about 30 years ago.
Using valid Cabalistic (sp?) methods it can be prooven that Stalin,
Hitler, Churchill, Kennedy, etc. were not the prophecied "beasts", but
when they checked for the word "COMPUTER" the answer came back "666". So
who knows, maybee the COMPUTER, BILL GATES III, MICROSOFT, are the
"beast. Makes you wonder.
Now lets get back to real astronomy. This string is getting way out of
hand.
ku6...@freenet.on.ca
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> ku6...@freenet.on.ca wrote:
>
> > I hate it when someone starts quoting the bible only selectively.
>
> writings to suit the collective and current perspective on what they
> thought "Christian" religion "should" be early in the first century.
First of all, the New Testament, as we know it today, was first written
down in the THIRD Century A.D. from available records the apostals left
behind, and word-of-mouth stories that sounded plausible at the time.
Rome did not become Christian until the 3rd Century A.D. It became
necessary for Rome to have a standardized uniform religion throughout the
Empire.
Despite your rantings, as a Roman Catholic, I studied both, the Old
Testament (The Bible) and the New Testament intensively in an old style
Separate School run by nuns. You didn't graduate unless you knew the
bible inside-out. As for my statement, it is still valid. You can not
quote selectively from the bible to proove your point. Either answer all
the questions or none. Half a truth is worse than a lie. One of the
favourite verses people quote from is: "An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth", justifying all the revenge killings in the world. But read
the full text and you will find Jesus saying: "You will hear some say, an
eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you to show him the
other cheek" (Note I studied that passage in german, but you do get the
meaning). So stop quoting the bible only selectively. There are other
passages in there that can easily disproove anything you say.
Edwin Spector
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 16:11:19 -0600, Dave...@AOL.com wrote:
...
>
>On November 2nd, 1 AD
>the planets formed a Cross!
Well, fancy that. Note that the cross as a symbol PREDATES Christianity.
So, if the naked-eye planets did happen to form a cross, (as seen from
Earth) should that have been taken as a sign that some poor unfortunate
was going to be nailed to one?
Mystified
Edwin.
--
Remove ".NO-SPAM" to send me email
Richard Ottolini
>Well, fancy that. Note that the cross as a symbol PREDATES Christianity.
Yes. Some consider it a stylization of the Ankh, or the Egyptian symbol
of immortal life. So the symbol was familar in classical religous circles.
Carl Christensen
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:38:43 GMT, nstn...@fox.nstn.ca (Mary L.
Urquhart) wrote:
>Oh, they knew. They just didn't call them "planets". There were
>stars that moved and then there were the "fixed" stars. And stars
>were lights in the sky, or bodies that had light of some kind. A
>planet has light, even if it is reflected light. Don't assume that
>the language you know is the same as that which they used.
Yes, but they most likely had special names for the "moving stars"
since they tend to stick out amongst the rabble of "fixed" stars. I'm
sure if a conjunction of planets was the star of Bethlehem the Bible
would say "the red moving star and the bright white moving star
appeared in the east." Just seems like an attempt to justify
mythology with forced astronomy.
John Reder
Elson Trinidad wrote:
>
>
> > On November 2nd, 1 AD
> > the planets formed a Cross!
> >
> > This seemed like a significant religious symbol, deserving more study.
>
>
> The cross wasn't recognized as a religious symbol until over a century
> later. If anyone saw a cross in the sky, it probably might have been
> interpreted as a sign of death, rather than the birth of a king, or any
> sort of miraculous event. The cross was a form of capital punishment those
> days, remember? It's kind of like seeing an electric chair in the sky
> today.
You are confusing the cross with the crucifix. The cross is a
spiritual symbol that goes back to the dawn of man and is universal.
(the Tibetan swastika predates the Christian cross as does the shaman's
cross of the Australian aborigines). The Christian establishment would
like to perpetuate the idea that all religious symbols began with
Christianity, but they didn't. Most, if not all, biblical religious
symbols and stories had their genesis in other universal "pagan"
traditions and were merely adapted, often as a means of easier
assimilation of people from other cultures.
I f you really want to find an eye opening revelation about the
universal aspects of the cross, read about the ancient Australian
aboriginal religious traditions.
Both evolutionarily and anthropologically, the continent of Australia
was totally isolated form any outside influence until the 17th Century.
Yet, for a thousand years before Christ, aboriginal shaman,as part of
their initiation, were tied to a tree while the tribal members cut off
and ate small parts of their flesh, to establish their link between the
gods and the people. So the Christ story is much more universal than
unique.
Carl Christensen
On 22 Apr 97 06:25:36 GMT, "Elson Trinidad" <el...@westworld.com>
wrote:
> > On November 2nd, 1 AD
>> the planets formed a Cross!
>>
>> This seemed like a significant religious symbol, deserving more study.
>
>Doesn't make sense.
>
>The cross wasn't recognized as a religious symbol until over a century
>later. If anyone saw a cross in the sky, it probably might have been
>interpreted as a sign of death, rather than the birth of a king, or any
>sort of miraculous event. The cross was a form of capital punishment those
Whenever I hear of heavenly portents, whether the "star of Bethlehem"
or comets to freak out suicidal Heaven's Gate members, I always think
of this exchange written by William Shakespeare in Henry IV, Pt 1.
It's between the mystical, boasting Owen Glendower and the more
pragmatic soldier Hotspur:
--------------------------------
GLENDOWER
I cannot blame him: at my nativity
The front of heaven was full of fiery shapes,
Of burning cressets; and at my birth
The frame and huge foundation of the earth
Shaked like a coward.
HOTSPUR
Why, so it would have done at the same season, if
your mother's cat had but kittened, though yourself
had never been born.
--------------------------------
Paul Schlyter
In article <5jgjgq$8...@news.nstn.ca>,
Mary L. Urquhart <nstn...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
>
>ca...@op.net (Carl Christensen) wrote:
>>On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:44:54 GMT, ti...@backdoor.com (AstroJack)
>>wrote:
>>>Stellar crosses are not unusual.
>>>A much more significant "star" is the multiple conjunction of planets
>>>in the sign of Pisces at March 1, 7 BC. (1:30am local mean time in
>>>Bethlehem) This timing was determined by Don Jacobs, an astrologer
>>>who was also a minister (Methodist, I believe) and who had studied the
>>>astrological techniques that the Magi would have used.
>
>>That doesn't say much for the bible then, or the people of that time
>>in Israel, if they can't tell the stars from the planets. It seems
>>like every other culture that pre-dated and was concurrent with
>>ancient Israel knew the difference between stars and planets!
>>Carl Christensen
>
>stars that moved and then there were the "fixed" stars. And stars
>were lights in the sky, or bodies that had light of some kind. A
>planet has light, even if it is reflected light. Don't assume that
>the language you know is the same as that which they used.
FYI: the word "planet" originates from the greek, where it means
"wandering star".
Edmond Wollmann
> > ku6...@freenet.on.ca wrote:
> > > I hate it when someone starts quoting the bible only selectively.
> > Then you hate the whole Bible-which is a canonized version of selected
> > writings to suit the collective and current perspective on what they
> > thought "Christian" religion "should" be early in the first century.
> First of all, the New Testament, as we know it today, was first written
> down in the THIRD Century A.D.
BOUND, Yes I admit my error here, but the rest of my post stands.
> from available records the apostals left
> behind, and word-of-mouth stories that sounded plausible at the time.
Here is a quote from "New Testament Story" David L. Barr, 1995 Wadsworth
publishing;
I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is only a specific instance
of a general problem in reading literature: we read every writing
through the experience of earlier readers. There exists a whole world of
earlier readings between us and any text not our exact contemporary. And
the simple truth is we will never be able to read these texts in the
same way we would have had there not been these earlier interpretations,
even if we read against the grain and try to subvert them. Even so we
would be reacting to those readings. The best we can hope is to be aware
of
how earlier interpretations shape our own perceptions of the text.
We should be aware, for example, that beginning already in the second
century and culminating in the monumental work of Augustine (345-430
CE), the fifth-century North African bishop, people began to read the
New Testament writings as if they were philosophical treatises, drawing
out their implied theology. Since Augustine it has been nearly
impossible to read these documents without considering their supposed
theology. This theological reading evolved throughout the Middle Ages
into a very elaborate system that envisioned four levels of meaning in
every text: the literal, the symbolic, the ethical, and the spiritual. A
little Latin
verse, here freely translated, plays on these levels of meaning:
The literal shows us what was done;
The symbol shows how faith is won;
The moral gives us rules for life;
The spiritual shows where we end our strife.
(See Grant,1963:119)
All four levels of meaning were bound up into a comprehensive
philosophical-theological system, coming to magnificent expression in
the works of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century (1225-1274).
> Rome did not become Christian until the 3rd Century A.D. It became
> necessary for Rome to have a standardized uniform religion throughout the
> Empire.
> Despite your rantings, as a Roman Catholic, I studied both, the Old
> Testament (The Bible) and the New Testament intensively in an old style
> Separate School run by nuns. You didn't graduate unless you knew the
> bible inside-out. As for my statement, it is still valid. You can not
> quote selectively from the bible to proove your point.
Oh yes I and anyone can do anything we are willing and bold enough to
believe we can define ourselves to be and quote-you miss the point-the
bible is NOT a continuous, whole nor ordered text logically, therefore
it is ALREADY out of context and order. You assume some devine
organization I suppose, but any scholar will tell you it REALLY doesn't
make much sense the way it was put together. The gospel of John for
example was added later to appease the more gnostically oriented. It is
a judgment call any way you look at it regarding the way the priests
decided things would be added and canonized-therfore my argument stands.
> Either answer all
> the questions or none. Half a truth is worse than a lie.
Then by your requirements the entire Bible is a lie.
> One of the
> favourite verses people quote from is: "An eye for an eye, and a tooth
> for a tooth", justifying all the revenge killings in the world. But read
> the full text and you will find Jesus saying: "You will hear some say, an
> eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you to show him the
> other cheek" (Note I studied that passage in german, but you do get the
> meaning).
Irrelevant, one is from the old testament (primarily Jewish in nature)
and one is from the new Testament-the new testament was to OVERRIDE the
old testament as it was too judgmental and more flexibility was
needed-that was Christs "good News" (gospel). They were put together as
sort of a "please everyone" attempt-the rigidly Jewish and the
Christian.
> So stop quoting the bible only selectively. There are other
> passages in there that can easily disproove anything you say.
There is no sound argument presented for me to stop anything-so I will
not.
Steven Drinovsky
AstroJack wrote:
>
> Dave...@AOL.com wrote:
>
<snip>
> >I wanted to know what the star of Bethlehem was, and no one seemed to
> >have a definitive answer. So I looked for myself, with a planetarium
> >program. What I found was that:
>
> >the planets formed a Cross!
>
> A much more significant "star" is the multiple conjunction of planets
> in the sign of Pisces at March 1, 7 BC. (1:30am local mean time in
> Bethlehem) This timing was determined by Don Jacobs, an astrologer
> who was also a minister (Methodist, I believe) and who had studied the
>
<snip>
Did anyone bother to check these claims? Useing SkyMap 3.1, I found
that on Nov. 2, 1 AD Venus, Mars, Mercury, and Jupiter formed a cross.
The problem is, the cross would have only been visible in the morning
for about 20min until the sun came up, if that. The lowest planet,
Jupiter,
would rise at 4h 54m 23s and the sun would rise at 5h 58m 12s.
As for the second claim. On Mar 1, 7 BC. Yes, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter,
Uranus,
and the moon where all in the Constellation Pisces and Mercury was in
Aquarius.
However, the sun was right in the middle. I do not think anyone would
have seen
the planets. Not to mention that only Jupiter and Uranus where anywhere
near each other at that time. Also, at 1:30am local mean time in
Jerusalem
none of these planets where visible.
Steven
--
Steven Drinovsky sdri...@ix.netcom.com
Texas Department of Health, home (512) 453-2317
WIC Automation work (512) 458-7111x3476
http://www.netcom.com/~sdrinovs pager (512) 403-8453
My opinions are my own and by no means represent the state of Texas.
Michelle Stone
Yup! I checked them. You know what? They don't form
a cross at all... To me they look like a very long kite!!
Michelle
Carlton & Lynn Smith
>> First of all, the New Testament, as we know it today, was first written
>> down in the THIRD Century A.D.
>
If this is true, how do you explain Luke's intimate knowledge with the
linguistic nuances and historical exactness. In fact, many scholars
have concluded there is no way Acts could have been written by someone
who wasn't alive at that time. What's more is that the New Testament
is far more credible in it's reliability (that we have what ws
originally written) than any ancient work. This is judged by the
sheer number of manuscripts and their relative closeness to the times
they are writing about. There are far fewer manuscripts of the second
most reliable ancient writing, which is Homer's Illiad, and scholars
have no doubt as to the genuinness of the book we have today.
Carlton Smith
"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast." Oscar Wilde
Garrett
Michelle Stone wrote:
>
> Yup! I checked them. You know what? They don't form
> a cross at all... To me they look like a very long kite!!
>
> Michelle
>
> Steven Drinovsky wrote:
> >
> > Did anyone bother to check these claims? Useing SkyMap 3.1, I found
> > that on Nov. 2, 1 AD Venus, Mars, Mercury, and Jupiter formed a cross.
> > The problem is, the cross would have only been visible in the morning
> > for about 20min until the sun came up, if that. The lowest planet,
> > Jupiter,
> > would rise at 4h 54m 23s and the sun would rise at 5h 58m 12s.
> >
Also, Mars would have not been visible to the naked eye during these
observation times. I know from experience.
On Nov 22, 1995 I went out to see the Jupiter-Venus-Mars conjunction. I could
not see Mars at all in the twilight, and it was brighter then than in this
"cross" conjunction.
> > As for the second claim. On Mar 1, 7 BC. Yes, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter,
> > Uranus,
> > and the moon where all in the Constellation Pisces and Mercury was in
> > Aquarius.
> > However, the sun was right in the middle. I do not think anyone would
> > have seen
> > the planets. Not to mention that only Jupiter and Uranus where anywhere
> > near each other at that time. Also, at 1:30am local mean time in
> > Jerusalem
> > none of these planets where visible.
> >
> > Steven
> >
> > --
> >
> > Steven Drinovsky sdri...@ix.netcom.com
> > Texas Department of Health, home (512) 453-2317
> > WIC Automation work (512) 458-7111x3476
> > http://www.netcom.com/~sdrinovs pager (512) 403-8453
> > My opinions are my own and by no means represent the state of Texas.
--
-Garrett
Please remove 'no' and 'spam' from the above e-mail address if you wish
to reply to me.
Peter Besenbruch
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:11:50 -0400, ku6...@freenet.on.ca wrote:
>If he would have read the whole text of the New Testament, instead of
>mis-quoting selected verses, he would have come accross a little section
>before the Magi got involved in the story. Something to the effect of
>Caesar Augustus ordering that everyone in the land to be enumerated
>(probably for tax purposes), each in their birthplace. Mary was heavy
>with child (ie. Mary was pregnant and almost at full term) when Joseph
>took her to Bethlehem to be enumerated.
I think it is useful to reade matthew and Luke separately, not least
because their dating conflicts with each other.
> Now I don't remember all of my
>Roman history, but I think that Caesar Augustus died in 4 B.C. which
>means that Christ's birth was actually befor that, probably in 7 B.C.
>despite current assumptions. See, Roman history we know more accuratly
>than Bible history - we have a record of when Caesar Augustus died but we
>do not have a birth certificate for Jesus.
Augustus (In Luke's gospel) died in 14 CE. Herod the Great died (in
Matthew's gospel) in 4 BCE. Quirinius (Luke 2:2) was govornor of Syria
and took a more localised census in 6-7 CE. Hence, these are different
stories and are hard to reconcile.
AstroJack
Steven Drinovsky <sdri...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>AstroJack wrote:
><snip>
>> A much more significant "star" is the multiple conjunction of planets
>> in the sign of Pisces at March 1, 7 BC. (1:30am local mean time in
>> Bethlehem) This timing was determined by Don Jacobs, an astrologer
>> who was also a minister (Methodist, I believe) and who had studied the
>>
><snip>
>As for the second claim. On Mar 1, 7 BC. Yes, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter,
>Uranus,
>and the moon where all in the Constellation Pisces and Mercury was in
>Aquarius.
>However, the sun was right in the middle. I do not think anyone would
>have seen
>the planets. Not to mention that only Jupiter and Uranus where anywhere
>near each other at that time. Also, at 1:30am local mean time in
>Jerusalem
>none of these planets where visible.
>Steven
>--
>Steven Drinovsky sdri...@ix.netcom.com
.
Nope. None of those planets was visible, but planetary motion had
already been observed by Chaldeans/Babylonians/Persians for centuries
and their positions would have been charted with reasonable accuracy.
Much more to that point would be the fact that they had no way of
knowing about Uranus. That would be important to modern astrologers
looking at that horoscope, but before 13 March 1781 it was entirely
unknown.
Peter Besenbruch
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:32:22 -0700, John Reder <XJR...@TIAC.NET>
wrote:
> You are confusing the cross with the crucifix. The cross is a
>spiritual symbol that goes back to the dawn of man and is universal.
I think you exaggerate a little.
>(the Tibetan swastika predates the Christian cross as does the shaman's
>cross of the Australian aborigines). The Christian establishment would
>like to perpetuate the idea that all religious symbols began with
>Christianity, but they didn't.
As a member of the Christian establishment, I feel so exposed....
> Most, if not all, biblical religious
>symbols and stories had their genesis in other universal "pagan"
>traditions and were merely adapted, often as a means of easier
>assimilation of people from other cultures.
Bottom line, the very pagan Romans gave Christianity the cross. Use of
the cross as a Christian symbol became widespread when Constantine
legalized Christianity. It was Constantine that stopped the practice
of crucifixion. Your later citation of Australian aboriginal
practices, while interesting, probably had no influence on
Christianity. Australia, as you noted, was quite isolated.
John Reder
Hello!!! Point was, spiituality has universal concepts. It's not a
question of one stealing from another. That Chritainity in the
Palestine and aborigines in Australia came upon the "tie me to a tree
and eat my flesh" thingee means that it is part of a universal right and
not the exclusive property of any one religion.
As for exagerating about the cross going back in time, I can't even
begin to respond to that. Pick the race and time you want, the
archeological evidence is there for them all. The ancient Egyptians had
the cross, the Hopi in the US southwest, the Iroquois in the northeast,
the Tibetans, the Hindus.... You don't even have to leave home...the
Polynesians had it.
As a christian the problem is not that you should feel exposed, but not
exposed. Which is the problem with the "ONE TRUE WAY"...any "ONE TRUE
WAY". The never look behind any door that isn't marked " THE CHOSEN
PEOPLE ONLY"
Andy Smith
>> > On November 2nd, 1 AD
>> > the planets formed a Cross!
>> >
One point here, that no-one appears to have mentioned yet. The calender
has changed several times over the centuries, hence this date, which was
arrived at by winding back the 'present day' calender in a star map
program, will be in significant error, won't it?
Michael Sims
No, Andy. An inch equals 2.54cm equals whatever number times the unit used
for the same distance on every planet in Creation. To paraphrase
Shakespeare, "A distance by any unit of measure remains the same
distance."
Michael
ALLCOCK, JOHN
Jim Roach <jro...@gte.net> wrote:
>Thomas Seers wrote:
>>
>> AstroJack wrote:
>> >
>> > Dave...@AOL.com wrote:
>> >(LARGE AMOUNT SNIPPED)----------------------------------------------------------------
>> >**************************************
>>
Would the purveyours of this claptrap _PLEASE_ take it to a
more appropriate forum, (wherever that might be!!) Astronomy has
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with idle speculation about some poor
deceased prognosticator of an astrological bent, nor obout idle
religious ravings.Rember, the internet goes everywhere- all _ARE NOT_
Christians, or whatever is being pushed at the current time. Religion
has its' place-: it is _NOT on the SCI. newsgoups...
Find some more appropriate venue for this interminable
twaddle.......
John Allcock R.N.
Montreal, Canada
Jim Roach
John,
You assume too much...I never made any statement of belief or
disbelief in any religion. I ask a question about a documented
historical astronomical event ( star of Bethlehem) and a refernece from
a historical document. You cannot seperate astronomy from humanity, the
very names of our constelations come from a belief system. Humanity has
asked many deep questions throughout time, and what more obvious place
to look but to the heavens for answers. It is comforting to know that
some such as yourself have completed their journey of questions and
seek to know no more than you are taught. Many disciplines are
interlaced. Regards, Jim.
Br.Athanasius
> Jim Roach <jro...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> >Thomas Seers wrote:
> >>
> >> AstroJack wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Dave...@AOL.com wrote:
> >> >(LARGE AMOUNT
SNIPPED)----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >**************************************
> >>
> Would the purveyours of this claptrap _PLEASE_ take it to a
> more appropriate forum, (wherever that might be!!) Astronomy has
> ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with idle speculation about some poor
> deceased prognosticator of an astrological bent, nor obout idle
> religious ravings.Rember, the internet goes everywhere- all _ARE NOT_
> Christians, or whatever is being pushed at the current time. Religion
> has its' place-: it is _NOT on the SCI. newsgoups...
>
> Find some more appropriate venue for this interminable
> twaddle.......
>
> John Allcock R.N.
> Montreal, Canada
Your definintion of astrology is not the only one. The observation of
the stars has been associated with religion for hundreds of centuries.
The Christian message, for good or for ill, has references of an astrological
bent. All indeed are not Christians, neither are all rude atheists( or whatever)
The term "idle" is in need of defintion.
Jonathan Scott
In article <5k0tag$orl$2...@news2.gte.net>,
on 28 Apr 1997 01:08:32 GMT,
Jim Roach <jro...@gte.net> writes:
>...
> You assume too much...I never made any statement of belief or
>disbelief in any religion. I ask a question about a documented
>historical astronomical event ( star of Bethlehem) and a refernece from
>a historical document.
I think calling the "Star of Bethlehem" an "astronomical" event is
going a bit far.
Anyway, isn't it obvious that the "Star of Bethlehem" is simply a more
distant view of the "Glory of the Lord" (that appeared to the
shepherds), and is also the same as various fiery things that that
Ezekiel, Daniel, and Ezra saw, and before that a pillar of fire by night
or a cloud by day, or a "smoking fire-pot", not to mention "fiery
whirlwind" and/or "chariots of fire" depending on your translation?
I don't think it needs a "historical" explanation separately from all
of those other manifestations of similar fiery appearances.
Jonathan Scott
jonatha...@vnet.ibm.com or jsc...@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com
(E-mail address in header is not valid from the internet).
Br.Athanasius
In article <336065ae...@news.lava.net>, prb@#nobulk#.lava.net (Peter
Besenbruch) wrote:
Yours is the standard history book story, it is of course true that the
Cross, as such, predates the historical crucifixion. No doubt. The effort to
interpret religion in purely historical terms, renders it invalid, as such.
The Cross is a universal symbol, its use, by God, as the means of His Passion
is a testimony to the universality of the salvific action of Christ, the
God-Man. I refer you to the book, " The Symbolism of the Cross" by Rene
Guenon ( a Muslim) for a very good explication of the Universal Doctrine of
the Cross
Edmond Wollmann
Carlton & Lynn Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:26:33 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> >> down in the THIRD Century A.D.
I did NOT write this please get your quotes straight.
Thanks
Gary Avrett
Parts of The book of Luke were found with the Dead Sea scrolls...the were
estimated as having been written around 65 A.D. because these Items were
hidden before the 70 A.D. destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem....
Gary Avrett
Carlton & Lynn Smith <cnls...@dclink.com> wrote in article
<335dde83...@news.hlc.net>...
> On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:26:33 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> First of all, the New Testament, as we know it today, was first
written
> >> down in the THIRD Century A.D.
> >
>
Matt Phelps
Gary Avrett wrote:
>
> Parts of The book of Luke were found with the Dead Sea scrolls...the were
> estimated as having been written around 65 A.D. because these Items were
> hidden before the 70 A.D. destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem....
> Gary Avrett
>
> Carlton & Lynn Smith <cnls...@dclink.com> wrote in article
> <335dde83...@news.hlc.net>...
> > On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:26:33 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
> > <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> >
(etc... New Testament discussion snipped)
Please remove sci.astro.amateur from the follow-up list of
newsgroups for this thread. Though interesting, it has
little to do with amateur astronomy equipment, techniques, etc.
Thank you,
--
Matt Phelps
System Administrator
Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
mph...@cfa.harvard.edu
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu
Stephen Bayzik
On Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:12:57 GMT, cnls...@dclink.com (Carlton & Lynn
Smith) wrote:
>If this is true, how do you explain Luke's intimate knowledge with the
>linguistic nuances and historical exactness.
What "linguistic nuances"? What "historical exactness"?
> In fact, many scholars have concluded there is no way Acts could have been written by someone
>who wasn't alive at that time.
At "what" time? As to "scholars", most Bible School Evangelical
scholars are academic jokes. However, they have a market; ie.
Evangelical Bible Babblers keeping their Christian Book stores in
business.
>What's more is that the New Testament is far more credible in
> it's reliability (that we have what was originally written) than any ancient work.
The common evangelical claim. Pure unadultrated nonsense.
>This is judged by the sheer number of manuscripts and their relative closeness to the times
>they are writing about.
What coherent set of manuscripts are you talking about?
>There are far fewer manuscripts of the second most reliable ancient writing,
> which is Homer's Illiad, and scholars have no doubt as to the genuinness
>of the book we have today.
I'm glad that evangelicals have hear of the old bard; maybe there is
some help for their general erudition. Genuine to what? Again to
"evangelical scholars" a fools dream at its best, at its worst
academic fraud precipitated with there obsession with some Holy Grail.
It is assumed that the Lucinian text was written at the earliest in 80
to 85 C.E.. Even so, such a complete "liturgical text" written even at
that later date has ever been found.
The earliest complete liturgical texts which we have is that used by
Chrysostom in the East and Jeromes Vulgate in the West.
--
Steve sba...@idirect.com
Michael Sims
One certain indicator of a man's ignorance is what he objects to. Another
is to discover him as an ill-informed mocker.
Despite the scorn of such fellows, there are some who have knowledge of the
New Testament and its origins and contents and structure and language and
purpose. Indeed, some seminary professors are unworthy, but not all are. In
fairness, a man ought to display his own qualifications before he begins to
run down others' evidences.
Can any of the participants in this controversy read and understand Koine
Greek? I doubt it, but am more than willing to discuss issues relating to
that.
Now scientists generally insist that subjective phenomena be subjected to
objective evaluation. For example, when there is a report of the haunting
of a house, they wire the place with electronic instruments and cameras,
attempting to reduce everything to their own limited ability to perceive
and to find shelter from their doubts and fears. In this, they are
fundamentally dishonest, as some have been in this discussion.
Here is a proposal: Let the mockers and objectors and scorners find among
themselves even one who is courageous enough to rise from concealment and
truly enter the fray. Let one come forward and test the process as
believers have tested it for themselves. Let him truly and honestly
evaluate his own life, thoughts, acts, and actions, then adopt an attitude
of heartfelt remorse for his shortcomings then make an unfeigned appeal to
God to make him (at the very least) more aware spiritually. Those who have
so tested the validity of the essence of the New Testament's doctrines will
have no doubt of the outcome. If there is even one among the mockers and
objectors and scorners, let that one get beyond petty squabbling and onto
the business of proving what is real and what is not.
Either that, or go deeper into validating himself by invalidating others
and their values.
And there is nothing wrong with that. It is as proper for a mocker to mock
as it is for a thief to steal. Every devil is by definition a liar and a
thief and a mocker and a scorner and an objector. So says the New Testament
in many places.
Fortunately for those, the New Testament also says in many places that such
persons can be changed. That is, if they haven't already gone too far.
Michael
Joe Mize
Michael Sims wrote:
>
> Here is a proposal: Let the mockers and objectors and scorners find among
> themselves even one who is courageous enough to rise from concealment and
> truly enter the fray.
//////
Michael;
Please take your discussion to an appropriate site. This site is
ASTRONOMY, not Theology.
I assume your purposes of posting here is to get someone to "Play
Your Game", that is to get into a theological 'confrontation' which you
may not be able to find on alt.astrology (!), alt.bible.prophecy,
alt.messianic. Go to one of those more appropriate sites. Please go
now and take your discussions with you.
I don't believe you'll see any astronomers on your theology sites
discussing the merits of one telescope to another. Now if you want to
talk Astronomy without getting into a heated debate as your post implies
you're looking for, you are more than welcome. Just please stay
on-topic, Astronomy, not Theology...joe :-}
--
"May He Go Among The Imperishable Stars"
ca. 18th Dynasty, Theban Tomb Text
Lower Kingdom, Egypt
Michael Sims
Dear Joe,
I was responding to a response to a response by an addled-brained scorner,
and did not edit the header (or whatever one must edit to restrict the
original distribution list.) That header included your newsgroup, as placed
there by someone else. I did not intend to offend you at all, or to exceed
decorum. I answered an ignorant scorner who tried to bring confrontational
theology into astrology, which is my right.
Still, your assumption that I wish to "play a game" is silly and hackneyed.
Choose another charge, and try to find original words to convey it.
So that you might be at ease and to put an end to this, I apologize to the
limit of my liability.
Michael
Sheltering Sky
Ummm, there can be a cross in February of AD 1, Jesus would only be a
few months old...
In article <01bc594b$4f63efa0$3774...@tmsims.ix.netcom.com>,
guid...@ix.netcom.com says...
Carl Christensen
mo...@whatsa.matta.u.org (Moose&Squirrel) wrote:
[snip]
I agree. Now can you explain Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer and Frosty the
Snowman?
(probably some ancient Norse legends twisted by the Christians ;-)
------
Carl Christensen
C/C++/VB/Web Consultant
Philadelphia, PA USA
E-mail: ca...@op.net Web: http://www.op.net/~carl
Unknown
On Sat, 17 May 1997 04:35:15 GMT, mo...@whatsa.matta.u.org
(Moose&Squirrel) wrote:
I also agree. Just proves again that there are no original thoughts in
the universe, and everybody twists the ones they have to their own
purposes. So what else is new?
Ken Kizer
ki...@mindspring.com
- - - - - - - -
Ken Kizer
ki...@mindspring.com
Moose&Squirrel
Sorry, forgot to turn off the x-noarchive flag, this one deserves to
be in the archives for deja-news.
On 16 May 1997 19:41:05 GMT, eli...@mtcarmel.com (Sheltering Sky)
wrote:
>Ummm, there can be a cross in February of AD 1, Jesus would only be a
>few months old...
>
>
Uh, if you check in your religious books, you'll find that your jesus
was "... born during the time of the lambing ...". He was neither
born NOR conceived on Dec. 25th. He was born (in reality if at all)
during the spring. The only reason your religion celebrates it on the
25th of Dec. was a movement to cover up all significance of the Pagan
festivals of the Winter Solstice--when they were unable to convert the
Pagans thru torture or murder. If you look at the decorations and
practices of your "christmas" you'll find that EVERY image and symbol
of the holiday is of Pagan origin and meaning. The ONLY image or
symbol of christianity during christmas is the baby in the manger, all
the rest are of Pagan origin. I guess the christians had trouble
destroying everything so they tried to change the meaning of
everything.
And in fact, the custom of cutting down a tree and bringing it inside
to decorate, has it's origins from times when Pagans used to decorate
LIVING trees outside, to pay homage to the earth and it's life. The
christians, finding this against their twisted beliefs, CUT DOWN the
Pagans' living trees. Not wanting to be found out, they took the
trees inside their homes, sheds, and barns to try to hide their
destruction of their neighbor's holy-day. Voila! The Christmas Tree
custom was born. How nice this practice remains to this day (tho
disrespectful to earth's life) to show the utterly twisted ways of
christians to the rest of the world. (The original "Grinch that stole
christmas" (the ORIGINAL Pagan christmas) was a christian!)
Even the Magi where Pagan MAGIcians, and if you read the chapter on
them following the star, you'll read very clearly: Matthews 2, 1-2
"Now when jesus was born in Bethlehem ..., behold, wise men *FROM THE
EAST*, came to Jerusalem saying, 'Where is he who has been born king
of the jews? For we have seen his star IN *THE EAST* and have come to
worship him.'"
By this very statement, they should have ended up in India, NOT
Bethlehem. Geeze, they don't even know east from west! (Moe, Larry
and Curly, eh? Yes, even some Pagans are stupid. :) So by all
accounts -- they celebrated the birth of the WRONG KING!!!! If you
believe the bible to be the truth, then by this very statement, jesus
was NOT THE KING, some poor baby in the far-east was born the one true
king. Isn't it nice to know that millions of people have been utterly
duped for almost 2000 years now?
Remember, christianity came from an arid climate, evergreens,
mistletoe, etc, etc, ALL are celebrations of life in Pagan traditions.
It's easy to see who are the liars and thieves in these cases. It's
always the christians, the very people who claim to be the way to the
"truth" when in fact they've been practicing nothing but one huge lie
their whole lives, for 20 centuries now.
(No, I'm not a Pagan, but I do indeed enjoy finding the REAL truth and
shoving it in the faces of consummate liars. :)
BTW: IF christians find astrology demonic, then why do christians,
even the Vatican, find the time of their Easter by astrological
projections every year? (Check any good almanac to see how the day of
Easter is picked each year.) If you check further, you'll find that
Easter is actually the Pagan holiday of the Goddess of Spring --
"Eostre", it's why you practice the 3000 year old custom of decorating
eggs--the birth of life, the sunrise (in latin? or greek? eostre even
means sunrise, derived from the name of the Goddess). How on earth
does a religion that is 2000 years old lay claim to a practice that is
3000 years old? They did a botched cover-up job on this holiday, they
hardly even changed the spelling of it. The pronunciation of and
customs have remained intact all these many thousands of years.
Fascinating, no? I guess the truth always will win out, in spite of
the many millions of christians that would rather you believed their
lies.
Keep checking, you'll find that EVERY christian holiday is a carefully
crafted cover-up for an original Pagan holiday. It made for an
interesting detective case for me at one time, now I just find the
whole thing disgusting and contemptible (the same holds true for how I
feel about those that practice "The Christian Lie").
"There are none so lost -- as those who follow."
(think about it, I know you have the time :)
sregoR .M divaD
Mark Borchers wrote:
>
> Moose&Squirrel wrote:
> >
> [long dissertation about pagan festivals deleted]
>
> > Keep checking, you'll find that EVERY christian holiday is a carefully
> > crafted cover-up for an original Pagan holiday. It made for an
> > interesting detective case for me at one time, now I just find the
> > whole thing disgusting and contemptible (the same holds true for how I
> > feel about those that practice "The Christian Lie").
> >
>
> Paganism, with a few stubborn exceptions, has long since been
> relegated to the dumpster of extinction. Christianity has
> endured.
Mainly because of it's practice of adopting rituals/symbols/festivals
and other ideas from other religions and merely "adding" the Christian
component. Therefore, it has endured, but it has also evolved, probably
beyond the recognition of the early church fathers.
--
The Young American
===============================================
This world is half the devil's and my own,
Daft with the drug that's smoking in a girl
And curling round the bud that forks in her eye.
An old man's shank one-marrowed with my bone,
And all the herrings smelling in the sea,
I sit and watch the worm beneath my nail
Wearing the quick away.
Dylan Thomas
===============================================
Mark Borchers
sregoR .M divaD wrote:
>
> Mark Borchers wrote:
> >
> > Moose&Squirrel wrote:
> > >
> > [long dissertation about pagan festivals deleted]
> >
> > > crafted cover-up for an original Pagan holiday. It made for an
> > > interesting detective case for me at one time, now I just find the
> > > whole thing disgusting and contemptible (the same holds true for how I
> > > feel about those that practice "The Christian Lie").
> > >
> >
> > Paganism, with a few stubborn exceptions, has long since been
> > relegated to the dumpster of extinction. Christianity has
> > endured.
>
> Mainly because of it's practice of adopting rituals/symbols/festivals
> and other ideas from other religions and merely "adding" the Christian
> component. Therefore, it has endured, but it has also evolved, probably
> beyond the recognition of the early church fathers.
>
that are the purest models of New Testament Christian faith are
remarkably free of ritual. Much more so than other religions of
the world which use ritualistic practice to placate or manipulate
their deities.
Moose&Squirrel
On Mon, 19 May 1997 08:53:54 -0400, Mark Borchers <ma...@infi.net>
wrote:
>Moose&Squirrel wrote:
>>
>[long dissertation about pagan festivals deleted]
>
>> Keep checking, you'll find that EVERY christian holiday is a carefully
>> crafted cover-up for an original Pagan holiday. It made for an
>> interesting detective case for me at one time, now I just find the
>> whole thing disgusting and contemptible (the same holds true for how I
>> feel about those that practice "The Christian Lie").
>>
>Okay, maybe this is all true. So what?
>
>Paganism, with a few stubborn exceptions, has long since been
>relegated to the dumpster of extinction. Christianity has
>endured.
You have that backwards don't you? It is the Pagan rituals and
festivals which have endured. You celebrate them don't you? Just
because you bought the lie and call it a christian event does not mean
it is not a Pagan celebration you are involved in. You would have to
celebrate your christ's birthday in Spring if that were true. If I am
riding in a car where someone sanded off the name "Ford" and put on
the name "Chevy", I'm still riding in a "Ford". I bought the lie if I
believe it to be a "Chevy". Sounds like you took it hook, line and
sinker. (as well as the millions of others just like you) Just
because millions of people are believing a foolish thing, does not
mean it is no longer a foolish belief. You only have millions of
fools is all -- birds of a feather.
The main reason I bring this whole thing up is that so many of my
friends have died due to Modern Christian Human Sacrifices. If the
christian ethic were not on this planet today, the very first people
that died of AIDS would have been helped, the method of transmission
would have been found (it wasn't until 5 years after the first "fag"
died that anyone even bothered to find out why), and the epidemic
might have been put in check. But due to their lack of love for
others, the disease is at all your doors now.
I have nothing but contempt for christians and like to let others know
how deceitful, loveless, and twisted they are. More people have been
murdered or let die to appease christians' beliefs in their god
(human sacrifice) than ALL other religions combined since the
beginning of recorded history, just because this is the 20th century
does not mean their beliefs have become any wiser or kinder. Whenever
I see someone proselytize their lousy christians beliefs, you can be
sure I will do my best to expose them for what they are. They've been
murdering people for 2000 years now and still going strong. The people
who have died from AIDS are no exception to christians' vile ways. My
only regret is that Rome did not have an excess of lions.
What goes around, comes around, and they've got 2000 years worth of
bigotry, murder, and deceit headed their way. I won't enjoy seeing
it, but I'll understand why they deserve it. Completely. All you
have to do is look at the Middle East, Bosnia, Ireland, etc., etc. --
and wonder why they want that for the whole world. If you want a
country of murder and war, choose to be a christian. It's what
they're best at. And it's the ONLY thing their beliefs have EVER led
to. There won't be true peace on earth till the very last person has
chosen otherwise.
Or haven't you figured that out yet? Your religion is a CHOICE.
Nobody MADE YOU a christian, YOU chose it. Don't bother looking for a
gene that makes you one either. You have no excuse why you promote
and practice a belief that has let so many people die, or you murdered
outright. Did you know that at one time there were MILLIONS of Native
Americans? Where are they now? Oh, that's right, the christians,
with FULL support of their church -- MURDERED THEM.
There are NONE so lost - as those who follow.
Moose&Squirrel
>Moose&Squirrel wrote:
>>
>[long dissertation about pagan festivals deleted]
>
>> Keep checking, you'll find that EVERY christian holiday is a carefully
>> crafted cover-up for an original Pagan holiday. It made for an
>> interesting detective case for me at one time, now I just find the
>> whole thing disgusting and contemptible (the same holds true for how I
>> feel about those that practice "The Christian Lie").
>>
Wayne T Hally
In article <3384c393...@netnews.worldnet.att.net> mo...@whatsa.matta.u.org (Moose&Squirrel) writes:
>From: mo...@whatsa.matta.u.org (Moose&Squirrel)
>Subject: Re: The Cross of 11/2/0001 AD <--- The Christian Lie (reposted with x-noarchive flag intact)
>Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 21:18:18 GMT
>On Mon, 19 May 1997 08:53:54 -0400, Mark Borchers <ma...@infi.net>
>wrote:
This discussion has long ago drifted off of the subject of astronomy, so
please delete sci.astro from future flamefests
Thanx
Wayne
Dennis Ray
Moose&Squirrel wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 May 1997 08:53:54 -0400, Mark Borchers <ma...@infi.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >[long dissertation about pagan festivals deleted]
> >
> >> crafted cover-up for an original Pagan holiday. It made for an
> >> interesting detective case for me at one time, now I just find the
> >> whole thing disgusting and contemptible (the same holds true for how I
> >> feel about those that practice "The Christian Lie").
> >>
actually..we migrated here from Mongolia. DNA tests. But we were
killed only because we were thought to be savages, untamed,
dangerous,etc. We had homes, families, communities, courts, schools,
farms.
Dennis Ray
Moose&Squirrel wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 May 1997 08:53:54 -0400, Mark Borchers <ma...@infi.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Moose&Squirrel wrote:
> >>
> >[long dissertation about pagan festivals deleted]
> >
> >> crafted cover-up for an original Pagan holiday. It made for an
> >> interesting detective case for me at one time, now I just find the
> >> whole thing disgusting and contemptible (the same holds true for how I
> >> feel about those that practice "The Christian Lie").
> >>
farms.
Andrew
In article <338080...@infi.net>, Mark Borchers <ma...@infi.net>
writes
>> > Paganism, with a few stubborn exceptions, has long since been
>> > relegated to the dumpster of extinction. Christianity has
>> > endured.
>>
>> and other ideas from other religions and merely "adding" the Christian
>> component. Therefore, it has endured, but it has also evolved, probably
>> beyond the recognition of the early church fathers.
>>
>Certainly this has been done over the years. But in truth, the churches
>that are the purest models of New Testament Christian faith are
>remarkably free of ritual. Much more so than other religions of
>the world which use ritualistic practice to placate or manipulate
>their deities.
--
Andrew
Andrew
In article <3382c16d...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, Moose&Squirrel
<mo...@whatsa.matta.u.org> writes
>Or haven't you figured that out yet? Your religion is a CHOICE.
>Nobody MADE YOU a christian, YOU chose it. Don't bother looking for a
>gene that makes you one either. You have no excuse why you promote
>and practice a belief that has let so many people die, or you murdered
>outright. Did you know that at one time there were MILLIONS of Native
>Americans? Where are they now? Oh, that's right, the christians,
>with FULL support of their church -- MURDERED THEM.
>
>There are NONE so lost - as those who follow.
Native American argument is unhistorical. *Most* Native Americans died
from the dieases carried across from Europe--small pox, yellow fever etc
to which they had no immunity. Some of the rest were killed by the
arrival of animals such as cows and sheep--these trampled native
agriculture and lead to starvation. Some people also died due to
excessive labour demands, most notably in the silver mines. The
minority of deaths came from massacres such as those by Cortes and a few
other leaders. Official policy from Spain was in favour of the argument
of a Dominican priest Las Casa who argued that the natives should be
treated as real people.
It was the uneducated people those who manipulated Christianity for
their own ends who killed the natives, whom the priests tried to
protect.
I am not Christian, however when someone is historically inaccurate I
feel it necessary to put them right.(deaths were caused by other ways as
well, and I cannot be bothered to use specific evidence OK--just read
about the subject if you wish to know more)
--
Andrew
Andrew
In article <33804D...@infi.net>, Mark Borchers <ma...@infi.net>
writes
>Moose&Squirrel wrote:
>>
>[long dissertation about pagan festivals deleted]
>
>> crafted cover-up for an original Pagan holiday. It made for an
>> interesting detective case for me at one time, now I just find the
>> whole thing disgusting and contemptible (the same holds true for how I
>> feel about those that practice "The Christian Lie").
>>
>
>relegated to the dumpster of extinction. Christianity has
>endured.
went back to its old religion
Christianity is filled with Paganism anyway (esp. Catholic)
--
Andrew
rcs...@traveller.com
>In article <33804D...@infi.net>, Mark Borchers <ma...@infi.net>
>writes
>>Moose&Squirrel wrote:
>>>
>>[long dissertation about pagan festivals deleted]
>>
>>> Keep checking, you'll find that EVERY christian holiday is a carefully
>>> crafted cover-up for an original Pagan holiday. It made for an
>>> interesting detective case for me at one time, now I just find the
>>> whole thing disgusting and contemptible (the same holds true for how I
>>> feel about those that practice "The Christian Lie").
>>>
>>Okay, maybe this is all true. So what?
>>
>>Paganism, with a few stubborn exceptions, has long since been
>>relegated to the dumpster of extinction. Christianity has
>>endured.
>South America namely Peru--after the missionaries left, it once again
>went back to its old religion
>Christianity is filled with Paganism anyway (esp. Catholic)
>--
>Andrew
You are quite right about christians usurping other religion's
holidays;
Why they are even trying to claim the jewish messiah for their own.
If the essential jesus question is whether he is the rightful JEWISH
messiah, what matter is it of non-jews.
Christians are taking the man that the jews rejected as their messiah
as their own. It's a jewish question, not a gentile issue.
R Campbell
RC
Peter Besenbruch
I am writing in response to the message to ask folks to edit the
newsgroup line of the message. I just don't see this thread having
much to do with astronomy, so I took the liberty of removing sci.astro
from the header. Thanks for your help.
On Wed, 28 May 1997 01:19:30 GMT, rcs...@traveller.com wrote:
>On Tue, 27 May 1997 14:48:29 +0100, Andrew
><And...@gillfamily.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <33804D...@infi.net>, Mark Borchers <ma...@infi.net>
>>writes
>>>Moose&Squirrel wrote:
>>>>
>>>[long dissertation about pagan festivals deleted]
>>>
>>>> Keep checking, you'll find that EVERY christian holiday is a carefully
>>>> crafted cover-up for an original Pagan holiday. It made for an
>>>> interesting detective case for me at one time, now I just find the
>>>> whole thing disgusting and contemptible (the same holds true for how I
>>>> feel about those that practice "The Christian Lie").
>>>>
>>>Okay, maybe this is all true. So what?
>>>
>>>Paganism, with a few stubborn exceptions, has long since been
>>>relegated to the dumpster of extinction. Christianity has
>>>endured.
>>South America namely Peru--after the missionaries left, it once again
>>went back to its old religion
>>Christianity is filled with Paganism anyway (esp. Catholic)
>>--
>>Andrew
>
>You are quite right about christians usurping other religion's
>holidays;
>Why they are even trying to claim the jewish messiah for their own.
>If the essential jesus question is whether he is the rightful JEWISH
>messiah, what matter is it of non-jews.
>Christians are taking the man that the jews rejected as their messiah
>as their own. It's a jewish question, not a gentile issue.
>
>R Campbell
>RC
___________________________________________________
sing...@teleport.com
In article <338b871b...@news.traveller.com>, rcs...@traveller.com wrote:
:You are quite right about christians usurping other religion's holidays;
:Why they are even trying to claim the jewish messiah for their own.
Only the truly ignorant could make such a statement. Those who were JEWS
were the ones who accepted Yeshua as Messiah and preached HIS gospel. His
apostles were all JEWS. Who do you think preached it? So you won't offer
some witless answer I will tell you: Those who were Jews, that's who; then
later their converts who were called of GOD. But it was also some JEWS who
refused to accept HIM as MESSIAH and sought to have HIM killed. The two
groups split and one still doesn't have a messiah while the other does.
One group was messianic and later became known as christian (anointed).
One word is Greek the other Hebrew in origin and they mean the same. The
Noaic-Hebrew-Israelitish religion always taught the metaphor of Messiah;
of the Lamb of GOD who takes away the sin of the world. The metaphor
began with GOD making coverings for Adam and Eve, continued with Abel
offering the firstlings of his flock, continued with Abraham being
presented as the metaphor of GOD offering HIS son, continued as the
passover lamb's blood providing protection from the destroyer in Egypt;
was fulfilled in Yeshua Messiah's crucifixion; continues to be taught by
GOD's servants who reject so-called 'christian' - mixed pagan holidays and
who continue to slay the passover lamb each year (even most Jews don't do
that because it would teach Messiah to them so they ordinarily reject
GOD's commandments to them WHO commanded them to keep passover in the
prescribed manner *forever*.) Because they have rejected GOD, GOD has
rejected them and sent the sword and trouble after them into every land
where they have sought to hide themselves. Even now, goaded on by satan,
these wicked ones would enact laws in Israel to make it a crime to preach
GOD's word concerning HIS Messiah. The non-messianic Jews who rejected
Yeshua walked off the pathway set for them by GOD. The pathway remained
and true messianics always find it (being led there by GOD's WORD) and
walk in it. The so-called 'christian' church was the vehicle GOD used to
preach Messiah's gospel which it has done regardless of the corrupt state
of miscellaneous doctrines of devils which have attempted to attach
themselves to and pervert that gospel.
:If the essential jesus question is whether he is the rightful JEWISH
:messiah, what matter is it of non-jews.
Because Yeshua is GOD's messiah and HIS WORD was sent unto the whole
world. Psa 24:1 (KJV) "A Psalm of David. The earth {is} the LORD'S, and
the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. " That you
can formulate such a question only shows you have nothing whatsoever to do
with GOD's kingdom.
:Christians are taking the man that the jews rejected as their messiah
:as their own. It's a jewish question, not a gentile issue.
What nonsense. Many people whom the Jews would identify as 'gentile'
are, in fact, Israelites whom GOD has scattered, blessed, multiplied,
prospered and is now gathering back together all according exactly to HIS
prophecies and promises. Many of these Israelites never were 'Jews'
because their ancestry was of the Israelite or northern kingdom who were
carried away and dispersed by several Assyrian Kings (Shalmaneser and
Sennacherib) or who like in the case of Dan became a seafaring nation and
dispersed and multiplied throughout Hellas as Daanans and also throughout
the rest of the Mediterranean and subsequently throughout southern and
northern Europe and Scandanavia, Russia and elsewhere. Homer records
these Daanans offering clean animal sacrifices to Jove (corruption of
jehovah or Yaweh) and even wrapping the special offering of thighbones in
fat for an offering (who would do that but Jacob's children?). "Who is
so blind", says the Lord "but my servant Israel?" Jews conveniently forget
their brethern and forget that GOD's promises by covenant and blessing
were given to them also. GOD says through Isa 55:11 (KJV) "So shall my
word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me
void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper
{in the thing} whereto I sent it." But no, the Jews continue to reject
the word of GOD. They do not believe HIM and they do not believe that
what HE says becomes accomplished; if they did then they would see their
brother Israel who by the hand of GOD has set them in their own land again
and who also by the hand of GOD sustains them and keeps them from poverty.
Friend, your comments are a smoke of arrogance wafting on the wind to the
nose of GOD who will require somewhat of you for your froward mouth and
careless words if you do not repent. Amen.
Anthony Grigor-Scott
Dear Brother,
Christian greetings in the wonderful name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
An excellent reply. I invite you to visit
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au